Your comments about referenda show how little you know about (edit: the practicalities of) the US political system.

What's there to be informed about?


Right, this really is a bit dumb.

a) about five of us have managed to write probably in the region of 5000 words (not including quotes) on the subject. There's plenty to be informed about, discuss, on this one issue. When you think about every issue there is, that's loads.

b) it is as much 'do you want to murder unborn children' as it is 'do you want to allow women the right to terminate an unborn foetus,' as it is 'is a foetus any more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree?'

It's interpretation, which you can only legitimately do if you are informed. Being told what your party believes in church / conservative rallies / liberal rallies etc is not being informed. I would agree with the (inevitable) point that democracy gives me the right to be an ass in the booth and tick random boxes, but when this potentially limits others' liberties, we have a conundrum between democracy and liberty.

Unfortunately, the US public are one of the least informed, politically dealigned and disinterested.

Therefore votes (of any kind, and this extends to polling, so 60% think X must also be questioned) are not always the best course. And partly why they are so seldom used.

Oui, but see earlier comments. Democracy in the strictest sense (which, I agree can mean majority rule ) is in fact an unfair system in that it allows the majority (who may be misinformed) to bully the minority (who may feel passionately about an issue.) That's the ugly side of democracy, and it's why the constitution goes to great lengths to (try to) ensure it doesn't happen.

Furthermore, you start putting salient issues on the ballots (which are already complex enough) and they'll soon become a ballot 'book' with everything from abortion to offshore drilling to space telescope initiatives.